New Witnesses for God (Volume 3 of 3)

by B. H. Roberts

Footnotes

[1]. Howe's "Mormonism," p. 56.

[2]. "Mormonism in All Ages" (1842), p. 200.

[3]. See Hyde's "Mormonism" (1857), chapters 9, 10.

[4]. Smucker's "History of the Mormons" (1881 edition), p. 49.

[5]. "The Golden Bible" (1887), chapter 7.

[6]. "The Story of the Mormons" (1902), chapter 11.

[7]. Linn says that there are more than 3,000 such changes.

This, I think, is an exaggeration. "Story of the Mormons," p. 89. In 1889, Lamoni Call, formerly a Mormon, published a treatise on the subject which he entitled "Two Thousand Changes in the Book of Mormon," even this I think is an exaggeration; but there have been many changes as conceded in the text.

[8]. "Mormonism in All Ages," p. 19.

[9]. Ibid, p. 200.

[10]. Moroni's Preface, title page Book of Mormon.

[11]. Mormon viii: 17.

[12]. There is some justification for such a view as this, if we have in mind the idea of God making a full and perfect revelation to man. When God gives a revelation it necessarily has to be such an one as man can comprehend, and in terms with which he is familiar—in man's language; and as man's language is inadequate to express truth in its perfection, it follows that any revelation which God deigns to give to the children of men will fall somewhat below the perfect truth, hence the Apostle of the Gentiles declared, notwithstanding the existence of revelations in the scriptures which were extant in Paul's time, "We know in part, and we prophesy in part; we see [as] through a glass, darkly." This condition arises not out of any lack of power on the part of God to make a perfect revelation of truth, but out of man's inability to comprehend such a revelation; and hence God graciously condescends to meet man's somewhat narrow limitations by giving such a revelation of truth in the scriptures, as man by faith and diligence may comprehend.

[13]. "The Age of Reason," Paine, p. 19.

[14]. Ibid, p. 25.

[15]. "The Age of Reason," Part II, p. 98.

That Joseph Smith appreciated how inadequate human language is to express divine thought is evident from the following prayer of his, uttered when writing to his friend, W. W. Phelps: "Oh Lord God, deliver us in due time from the little, narrow prison, almost, as it were, total darkness of paper, pen and ink—and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language."—History of the Church, Vol. I, pp. 227-8.

[16]. Ibid p. 252.

[17]. The lecture was published in the "St. Louis Globe-Democrat," of Sunday, March 19, 1905.

[18]. Dr. Abbott delivered these lectures in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, during the winter of 1896.

[19]. This is also true of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Some of its passages rise to heights of sublimity, and then again descending to levels that are commonplace and labored.

[20]. "The Evolution of Bible Study" (Henry Drummond, 1901).

[21]. Replying to this criticism of the Book of Mormon some time ago (June, 1904), wherein the critic insisted that the question concerning the Book of Mormon was not where men say they got it, but "is it gold"—he insisted that the "assay test" must be applied—to which the writer made the following reply:

"I declare my willingness, as one of the believers in the Book of Mormon to see it submitted, as perforce it must be, to the 'assay test.' Is it gold? Are these important truths we have been considering this evening, wherein the welfare of half the world is concerned, gold or dross? Is the light which the Book of Mormon throws upon the word of God contained in the four (New Testament) Gospels of importance? (See this Vol. ch. 42: vi for the items here referred to). Is the fact that Jesus visited this western world and announced the saving power of his Gospel in such a manner that millions finally came to the knowledge of salvation a golden truth? Is the solemn warning to the Gentile nations inhabiting the western world (See chapter 42.) Worth while considering? May not these prophecies be golden, especially if needed? I shall leave you to answer that. But I want to suggest an improvement on the gentleman's simile—to this 'assay test.' I think it could be improved. The question is not so much as to whether in the four (New Testament) Gospels or in the fifth (i.e., the Book of III Nephi in the Book of Mormon) all is gold, but is there gold in them. I do not think the four Gospels are without alloy. In other words I do not think the four Gospels are perfect. I believe there are imperfections in them in forms of expressions and in the fact that they do not convey all that Jesus both taught and did; at best they are but fragmentary. St. John informs us in his Gospel that if all the things that Jesus had done were written, the world itself would hardly contain the books. We have not the full reports of Messiah's discourses. The full and absolutely pure world of God just as it fell from the lips of the Savior, is not in the four Gospels. For the most part we have but the recollections of the evangelists of what Jesus said and did. Only those who read the Greek, and unfortunately they are very few, may read even the four Gospels in the language in which the Apostles wrote them. We have translations of these records, and each time they are translated dilution takes place. The force of what is said becomes in the translation somewhat abated. * * * So with the book of III Nephi, that comes to us in abridged form. It is not the original book of Nephi; it is Mormon's abridgment of that book. He has condensed it, and in doing so has doubtless given us less perfect accounts of Christ's mission to the Nephites [than would have been found in the unabridged book of III Nephi]. That is to say, we have not all the surrounding circumstances or all the utterances of the Savior, or of the men the book represents as speaking. Then we have not even Mormon's original abridgment of Nephi's book—the real fifth Gospel—but only the Prophet Joseph's translation of Mormon's abridgment, and that it is admitted in his imperfect English. So that the whole five Gospels are fragmentary and tainted with imperfections and limitations, as all things are that pass through human hands; but they contain nevertheless, God's precious truths [the gold of the mine]; and some of these are found in the fifth Gospel as well as in the four Hebrew Gospels; and to me the truths of the fifth or Nephite Gospel are as precious and important as are those of the other four Gospels." (Discourse by the writer, "The Fifth Gospel," "Deseret Evening News," June 11, 1904). The whole discourse will be found in "Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 373-399.

[22]. "Millennial Star," Vol. XIX, p. 118.

[23]. One Anti-Mormon writer—the Rev. M. T. Lamb—devotes two chapters to this subject of circumlocution alone—"The Golden Bible," chapters i and ii. He brings into contrast passages from the Book of Mormon, lacking in directness of expression, with passages from the Bible celebrated for their directness, and thereby is most unfair in his argument; because he compares the best of the Bible with the worst of the Book of Mormon, a proceeding which might be reversed with disastrous results to the Bible, if the comparison were to end with this comparison of the worst in the one with the best in the other. Now let it be understood that I am not contending that the English translation of the Book of Mormon compares as literature with the English translation of the Hebrew scriptures. The latter is a translation by the most finished scholarship of the time in which it was accomplished—I refer to the authorized version, the translation completed 1611 A. D.—while the Book of Mormon is translated by an unlearned youth limited in educational opportunities, without even the advantage of a common school education. True, it is claimed for him that he was assisted by a divine inspiration. That, however, insures only the accuracy of the facts, the statement of the truth as contained in the Nephite record, not directness, accuracy, or charm of literary style. As for circumlocution in the expression of thought, that is but natural to one possessed of only a limited vocabulary. The existence of circumlocution, therefore, in the Book of Mormon is in harmony with and helps to illustrate what in these pages has been contended for, as to the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated, and the fact that the Prophet Joseph was left to express the thought he received from the Nephite record in such language as he could command; which theory of translation once accepted, I here repeat, makes easy an answer to all the objections urged upon the ground of literary defects in the Book of Mormon.

[24]. See translator's preface and title page of the "Authorized English Version."

[25]. Hyde's "Mormonism," chapters ix, x, xi.

[26]. "Golden Bible," chapter vii.

[27]. Linn's "Story of the Mormons," chapter xi.

[28]. "Improvement Era," Vol. VIII (1904), pp. 180, 181.

[29]. When the translators of our English Bible found it necessary to supply words to make clear the meaning in English, they printed those words in italics, and it is to these words that reference is made in the above.

[30]. The addition of the words in this verse, "who come unto me," are important. Surely, it is not enough for man to be merely poor in spirit. Not on that hinges salvation. A man can be poor in spirit and still fail of salvation; but "blessed are the poor in spirit 'who come unto me,' for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," is a reasonable doctrine.

[31]. Verses four and five in the "Douay" version are transposed, hence verse 5 here.

[32]. The addition of the words, "with the Holy Ghost" are important to this passage, for they make the statement of Messiah more definite, and take the passage out of all controversy as to what those who hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled with. They shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, the spiritual power that makes for righteousness.

[33]. Observe that this and the remaining passages quoted from the Book of Mormon are addressed directly to the Twelve Apostles, to whom especially they apply, not to the multitude. May it not be that when Jesus gave the same instructions in Judea he made a like distinction? If so, it was to the Twelve that he said: "Take no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof." That is a passage of scripture against which infidels have leveled their sarcasms ever since it was written. They have denounced it as instruction utterly impractical; as false in theory, as it would be impossible to practice; and as giving the evidence that Jesus was a mere idle dreamer, not a practical reformer. For, say they, this doctrine of taking no thought of the morrow, and taking no thought respecting food and raiment, if applied to the world's affairs, would turn the wheels of progress backward, and plunge the world into a state of barbarism. There could be no civilization under such conditions, they argue; and man would go back to the condition of the savage. I have never heard a Christian argument against that assault that has been an answer to it. But I find the key to the situation in this Book of Mormon version of the passage. It throws a flood of light upon this matter that makes the defense of the doctrine of Christ not only possible but easy against the assaults of the infidel world. This instruction about taking no thought for the morrow was not addressed to the multitude, nor is it to be followed generally by the members of the Church, nor by the people of the world at large. Jesus confines his instructions on this head, according to this Book of Mormon version, to the twelve men whom he chose among his disciples, and especially commissioned to go and preach the gospel; he admonishes them to so completely dedicate themselves unto the Lord that they would give no thought to these temporal things, but put heart, and soul into the work of their ministry; and promises that their Father in heaven, who knew they had need of food and raiment, would open the way for them; and by his bounty and grace would clothe them even as he clothed the lilies of the field; and care for them as he cared for the birds of the air. Thus limited to the twelve men especially dedicated to God's service, the doctrine is reasonable and practical, and subject to no objection that may not be successfully answered.

[34]. "Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof." I suggest a comparison here to that found in the other two versions, the Protestant, the Catholic. The Protestant: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof;" the Catholic: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." In the Protestant and Catholic versions you will observe that the evil is made sufficient for the day; in the Book of Mormon version the day is made sufficient for the evil. Three learned commentators in collaboration—Jamieson, Fausett, Brown—say of that sentence as it stands in the Protestant version: "An admirable, practical maxim, better rendered in our version than in any other, not excepting the preceding English ones. Every day brings its own cares, and to anticipate is only to doubt them." If these learned commentators can thus speak in high praise of the saying of the Savior as it stands in Matthew, how much more reason they would have for praising it as it is found in the Book of Mormon!

[35]. Or it may be that the changes occurred to the inspired mind of the Prophet when reading the English version, without referring to the Nephite plates. In this connection it is to be remembered that the Prophet, 1831-1833, was engaged in such an inspired "revision" of the Old and New Testament, sometimes miscalled a "New Translation" of the Bible. It is more proper, however, to speak of it as a "revision," as the Prophet did not at any time pretend to the knowledge of the ancient languages that would enable him to translate from the Hebrew or Greek, as translation is commonly understood. What he did was to revise the English text of the Bible under the inspiration of God, and that led him not only to give different renderings of various passages, but also to supply missing parts made known to him by the inspiration of God. The fact that he thus made a "revision" of the scriptures rather inclines one to the belief that when he turned from the Nephite records, to what must have been substantially parallel passages in the English version, the changes were suggested to him in this manner; that is, by the inspiration of the Lord operating in his mind when reading the English text. And indeed, may it not be possible that these changes suggested by the Spirit when reading the English text, during the translation of the Book of Mormon, led him finally to attempt the revision of the whole body of the Hebrew scriptures from the English text? It is interesting to note that it was by such an inspiration in relation to the 29th verse of the 5th chapter of John's Gospel, that led not only to a different reading of the text, but also to that marvelous vision of the future state of man, and the different degrees of glory that he will inherit. The text in the English version stands, "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." To the Prophet it was given, "and shall come forth, they who have done good in the resurrection of the just; and they who have done evil in the resurrection of the unjust;" then followed the vision.

[36]. The correspondence in full is to be found in the "Improvement Era" for January, 1904, pp. 179-196.

[37]. For confirmation of the likelihood of his taking such a course, see his letter to the saints in Nauvoo on the subject of baptism for the dead (Doc. & Cov., Sec. 128: 17, 18). He quotes the 5th and 6th verses of the last chapter of Malachi, precisely as it reads in the authorized English version, and then adds: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands." Long before Moroni had given him a different rendition as follows:

BIBLE. MORONI.

"Behold I will send you Elijah, "Behold, I will reveal unto
the prophet, before the you the Priesthood by the hand
coming of the great and terrible of Elijah, the prophet, before
day of the Lord; the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord.

"And he shall turn the heart "And he shall plant in the
of the fathers to the children, hearts of the children the
and the heart of the children promises made to the fathers,
to their fathers, lest I come and and the hearts of the children
smite the earth with a curse. shall turn to their fathers; if
it were not so, the whole earth
would be utterly wasted at his
coming."

And yet the prophet used the passage as it is found in Malachi, since it suited the prophet's purpose as it stood.

[38]. The Rev. M. T. Lamb, author of the "Golden Bible, or the Book of Mormon. Is it from God," delivering a lecture in the town of Coalville, Utah, had the following experience: In the course of his remarks the reverend gentleman related how he had sat down to read the Book of Mormon for the purpose of really ascertaining for himself if it were true or false. He related how he found on the very first page of the book the statement that Lehi's family consisted of his wife Sariah, and his four sons, Laman, Lemuel, Sam and Nephi. "Sam, Sam," said he, "that sounds familiar! Sam, it occurs to me that I have heard that name somewhere before! Sam! Oh, yes, I remember, 'Sam' is the Yankee nickname for Samuel! Right then and there," said the speaker, "I had my doubts as to this book being a genuine, ancient record, since I found a modern Yankee contraction of a proper name given as the name of an ancient personage!" At the conclusion of his remarks the reverend gentleman gave opportunity for questions on the subject of his lecture. Whereupon, Elder W. W. Cluff of the "Mormon" faith, arose, and in the course of a good-natured and informal discussion he asked the Rev. Mr. Lamb what he would think of a person who would sit down and begin an examination of the pentateuch—the books accredited to Moses, and the most ancient of the Hebrew scriptures (except, perhaps, the book of Job), to ascertain its truth, and coming to the enumeration of the names of the sons of Jacob finds one of them named "Dan." "Dan, Dan," says this supposed investigator, "Dan, why it seems to me that I have heard that name before! sounds familiar! Oh, I remember now, 'Dan' is the Yankee nickname for 'Daniel.' Therefore the writings of Moses cannot be genuine, because here is a Yankee nickname given as the name of a very ancient personage, therefore these alleged writings of Moses must be modern; hence, not what they have claimed to be, ancient inspired scriptures!" It is needless to say that the Rev. M. T. Lamb had nothing further to say on this point. The simple parallel was too much for him.

[39]. Linn's "Story of the Mormons," p. 96.

[40]. "Through nature to nature's God" is another instance referred to by many anti-Mormon writers as being in the Book of Mormon (although this writer has failed to find it), and is also in Pope's Essay on man. "The God of nature suffers" (First Nephi 19: 11-12), an expression used by the first Nephi, quoting the words of the prophet Zenos; this, be it remembered, several hundred years before Christ. This expression is accredited to Dionysius, the areopagite, supposed to be living at the time of the Savior's death on the cross, and who, as he beheld the sun hide its face, and witnessed the bursting of the rocks and felt the earth tremble, exclaimed: "Either the God of Nature suffers or the universe is falling apart." And it is sneeringly urged that "Nephi, 2400 years ago, hears the saying of a pagan who lives 634 years after him!" (Campbell.)

[41]. Job x: 20-21.

[42]. Job xvi: 22.

[43]. It must be remembered that Lehi's colony carried with them, in their journey to the western hemisphere, the Jewish scriptures extant up to 600 B. C., which scriptures doubtless included the book of Job; hence my remark that Lehi was doubtless familiar with Job's reflection concerning death—of his going whence he would not return.

[44]. I Nephi 22: 21. II Nephi 31: 5-10.

[45]. Such, substantially, is a suggestion made by Mr. H. Chamberlain, Esq., whom I have quoted before in this chapter.

[46]. In the course of a brief discussion of the Book of Mormon, carried on through one of the leading journals of Salt Lake City, with an "Unknown" writer, the following rule of criticism, on the objection discussed in the text, was laid down:

"Any book which professes to have been written in ancient times and yet quotes from authors not born until centuries afterwards, is a spurious book."

To which the writer made the following reply:

"This canon of criticism, however serviceable when applied to books in general, can in no sense be made to do service against the Book of Mormon. When he formulated his canon of criticism, as throughout the discussion, the 'Unknown' failed to recognize the fact that, while the Book of Mormon is an ancient book, it is largely a prophetic book; and the strongest complaint that can be made against it along the line of the 'Unknown's' criticism is that some of its prophecies are here and there translated in phraseology somewhat similar to that of writers living subsequent to the period in which it was written. In explanation of this fact I have urged that the translator, Joseph Smith, being acquainted with the New Testament [and to a limited extent with the popular phrases of some modern writers] and his diction being influenced by the phraseology of those writers, sometimes expressed the thoughts and predictions of the ancient writers in the New Testament phrases. So that the question at issue at this point of the discussion is, first, whether the ancient writers in the Book of Mormon could have been acquainted with the events, to them then future, found recorded in the Book of Mormon, and is the theory reasonable that in translating their statement of these events Joseph Smith's diction would be influenced by the phraseology of the New Testament? In dealing with the question of the New Testament phraseology in the Book of Mormon it is Joseph Smith that has to be dealt with, not Nephi [or other Book of Mormon writers], the translator, not the original writers."

The whole controversy, consisting of four papers, will be found in the writer's "Defense of the Faith and the Saints." Vol. I. pp. 313-354.

[47]. Isaiah chapter 48 is found in I. Nephi, chapter 20; Isaiah 49 in I. Nephi 21; Isaiah 50 in II. Nephi, 7; Isaiah 51 in II. Nephi, 8; Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14; Isaiah 52:9, 10; in III. Nephi 18-20; Isaiah 54 in III. Nephi 22.

[48]. Driver's Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament—Isaiah, p. 230.

[49]. Driver's Introduction, pp. 336, 337.

[50]. Ibid. p. 238.

[51]. Ibid., p. 242.

[52]. Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary, Introduction to Isaiah.

[53]. Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI., chapter I.

CHAPTER XLVII.

OBJECTIONS TO THE BOOK OF MORMON (Continued).

IV.

Pre-Christian Era Knowledge of the Gospel.

Among the early objections to the Book of Mormon, supposed to be unanswerable, was that based upon the fact that the Nephites hundreds of years before the birth of Christ had knowledge of him and the redemption he would bring to pass for man, and the means of grace through which salvation would be accomplished. In fact, that they had knowledge of the Christian institution. "He," (Joseph Smith) "represents the Christian institution," says Alexander Campbell, "as practiced among his Israelites before Christ was born! And his Jews are called 'Christians' while keeping the law of Moses, the Holy Sabbath, and worship in their temple, at their altars, and by their High Priest!"

Of late, however, not so much importance has been attached to this objection. It is becoming more and more recognized as a truth that the gospel of Christ was known from very ancient times, from before the foundations of the world in fact. Jesus, in scripture, is known as the "Lamb slain from before the foundations of the world," and certain ones are spoken of as having their names written in the "Book of Life" from the foundation of the world.^[[1]]

Paul speaks of the hope of "eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the world began."^[[2]] Men were not left in ignorance of the plan of their redemption until the coming of the Messiah in the flesh, even in the old world. Our annals are imperfect on that head, doubtless, but enough evidence exists even in the Jewish scriptures to indicate the existence of the knowledge of the fact of the Atonement and of the redemption of man through that means. Abel, the son of Adam, offered the firstlings of his flock as a sacrifice unto God. How came he to make such an offering, except that behind the sacrifice, as behind similar offerings in subsequent ages, stood the fact of the Christ's Atonement? In such sacrifice, was figured forth the means of man's redemption—through a sacrifice, and that the sacrifice of the first-born. Paul also refers to the sacrifices and other things of the law of Moses as "having a shadow of good things to come."^[[3]] But where learned Abel to offer sacrifices if not from his father, Adam? It is reasonably certain that Adam as well as Abel offered sacrifices, in like manner and for the same intent. Paul bears unmistakable testimony to the fact that the gospel was preached unto Abraham; and also that it was offered to Israel under Moses before "the law of carnal commandments" was given. "I would not that ye should be ignorant," he says, "how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ."^[[4]]

Paul's great controversy with the Christian Jews was in relation to the superiority of the gospel to the law of Moses. Many of the Christian Jews, while accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, still held to the law with something like superstitious reverence, and could not be persuaded that the gospel superseded the law, and was, in fact, a fulfillment of all its types and symbols. This controversy culminated in Paul's now celebrated letter to the Galatians, wherein he says:

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He sayeth not And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

After this testimony to the knowledge of the gospel existing among the ancients, it is useless for modern critics of the Book of Mormon to complain of the knowledge of the Christian institution possessed by the Nephites, and the fact that the Book of Mormon proclaims the existence of that knowledge. If it shall be said that the Nephites had clearer conceptions of it than the people inhabiting the old world, that fact would arise not out of God's unwillingness to make known the great truth, but to the fact that the Nephites succeeded in living more nearly within his favor; and hence their clearer knowledge of the truth.

It should be remembered that prophecy is but history reversed. Known unto God are all his works and words from the beginning to the end; and at various times he has made known future events in the clearest manner to his prophets who, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have recorded them. The Prophet Isaiah, 150 years before the birth of Cyrus, foretold his name; declared that he should subdue kingdoms, including Babylon, set free the people of God held in bondage there, and rebuild the House of the Lord at Jerusalem. And all this as clearly as the historians could write it after the events themselves took place. To Daniel he revealed the rise, fall and succession of the leading empires and nations of the world, even to the time of the establishment of God's Kingdom in power to hold universal sway in the latter days, an event not yet fulfilled.

It is clearer even from the Hebrew scriptures that the Lord has been willing, and even anxious, that a knowledge of the Christian institution should be had among men from the beginning. To the prophets of Israel, in fact, nearly every important event in the life of the Savior was made known. They foretold that he would be born of a virgin; that his name would signify "God with us;" that Bethlehem would be the place of his birth; that he would sojourn in Egypt with his parents; that he would reside in Nazareth, for "He shall be called a Nazarene;" that a messenger would prepare the way before him; that he should ride in triumph into Jerusalem upon a colt, the foal of an ass; that he would be afflicted and despised; that he would be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; that he would be despised and rejected of men; that men would turn their faces from him in his affliction; that he would be esteemed as stricken and smitten of God; that he would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of us men would be laid upon him, and by his stripes would be healed; that upon him would God lay the iniquity of us all; that for the transgressions of God's peoples would he be stricken; that he would be oppressed and afflicted, yet open not his mouth; that as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so would he be silent before his judges; that he would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver; that men would divide his raiment and cast lots for his vesture; that they would give to him gall and vinegar to drink; that not a bone of him should be broken; that he should be taken from prison and from judgment, and be cut out of the land of the living; that he would make his grave with the wicked and the rich in his death; but notwithstanding this he should not see corruption (i. e., his body decay), and that on the third day following his death he should rise triumphant from the grave. All this and much more was foretold by the ancient Hebrew prophets concerning the Messiah. This is prophetic history.

In like manner to the Nephites his prophetic history was made known, and is found in the Book of Mormon in some instances in greater plainness than in the Old Testament, because, for one thing—in addition to the suggestion made that the Nephites may have lived nearer to the Lord than other branches of the house of Israel—the Nephite scriptures have not passed through the hands of an Aristobulus, a Philo and other rabbis, who by interpretation or elimination have taken away some of the plain and precious parts of the Jewish scriptures. Surely if the Lord revealed to the Jewish prophets these leading events in the history of the Savior ages before the Messiah's birth, it ought not to be thought a strange thing if God imparted the same knowledge to the Nephite prophets. Nor can the fact that he did so, and that in plainer terms than in the revelations to the Jews, be held as valid objections to the Book of Mormon.

V.

The Unlawfulness of Establishing the Priesthood With Other Than the Tribe of Levi.

Somewhat akin to the objections last considered is one based upon the claim that it would be unlawful to establish a Priesthood other than that founded by Moses, when he chose the tribe of Levi to officiate in holy ordinances. In order that this objection, however, may be stated in its full force I quote it as set forth by Alexander Campbell, not even omitting the unfortunate coarseness of his language which was so unworthy of his character, and which I assign to the spirit of those times when coarseness was so often mistaken for forcefulness.

Smith, its real author [i. e., of the Book of Mormon], as ignorant and as impudent a knave as ever wrote a book, betrays the cloven foot in basing his whole book upon a false fact, or a pretended fact, which makes God a liar. It is this: with the Jews God made a covenant at Mount Sinai, and instituted a priesthood, he separated Levi, and covenanted to give him this office irrevocably while ever the temple stood, or till the Messiah came. "Then," says God, "Moses shall appoint Aaron and his sons and they shall wait on the priest's office, and the stranger (the person of another family) who cometh nigh shall be put to death." (Numbers iii: 10.) "And the priests and sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord, and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried." (Deut. xxi: 5). Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with 250 men of renown, rebelled against a part of the institution of the Priesthood, and the Lord destroyed them in the presence of the whole congregation. This was to be a memorial that no stranger invade any part of the office of the Priesthood. (Numbers xvi: 40). Fourteen thousand and seven hundred of the people were destroyed by a plague for murmuring against the memorial.

In the 18th chapter of Numbers the Levites are again given to Aaron and his sons, and of the priesthood confirmed to them with this threat—"The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." "Even Jesus," says Paul, "were he on earth, could not be a priest; for he was of a tribe concerning which Moses spake nothing of priesthood." (Heb. vii: 13). So irrevocable was the grant of the priesthood to Levi, and of the high priesthood to Aaron, that no stranger dare approach the altar of God which Moses established. Hence Jesus himself was excluded from officiating as priest on earth according to the law.

This Joseph Smith overlooked in his impious fraud, and makes his hero, Lehi, spring from Joseph. And just as soon as his sons return from the roll of his lineage, ascertaining that he was of the tribe of Joseph, he and his sons acceptably "offer sacrifices and burnt offerings to the Lord." (p. 15, first edition.)^[[5]] Also it is repeated (p. 18)—Nephi became chief artificer, shipbuilder, and mariner; was scribe, prophet, priest, and king unto his own people, and "consecrated Jacob and Joseph, the sons of his father, priests to God and teachers—almost 600 years before the fulness of the times of the Jewish economy was completed. (p. 72.) Nephi represents himself withal "as under the law of Moses" (p. 105). They built a new temple in the new world, and in 55 years after they leave Jerusalem, make a new priesthood which God approbates. A high priest is also consecrated and yet they are all the while "teaching the law of Moses, and exhorting the people to keep it!" (pp. 146, 209.) Thus God is represented as instituting, approbating and blessing a new priesthood from the tribe of Joseph, concerning which Moses gave no commandment concerning priesthood. Although God had promised in the law of Moses that if any man, not of the tribe and family of Levi and Aaron should approach the office of priest, he would surely die; he is represented by Smith as blessing, approbating, and sustaining another family in this appropriated office. The God of Abraham or Joseph Smith must, then, be a liar! And who will hesitate to pronounce him an imposter? This lie runs through his record for the first 600 years of his history.

I have stated this objection, at length, because much importance has been attached to it and many have regarded it as unanswerable. I consider its importance has been exaggerated, and the whole objection based upon conceptions of the right and power of God and his freedom of action, as altogether too narrow and dogmatic.

It is to be observed, first of all, that the inhibitions against others being appointed to the priesthood that was given to Aaron and the Levites, are inhibitions against "men" assuming the right to institute any other order of priesthood in Israel, or to grant the rights of this priesthood to any other tribe than that appointed by the Lord. Because of these inhibitions against "men" presuming to change the order which God has established, to therefore assume that God, to meet other conditions—such as these, for instance in the establishment of a branch of the house of Israel in the new world—the case of Lehi and his colony—that God cannot make such changes in the matter of establishing a priesthood as seemeth him good, is preposterous.

I think the argument of this point might be closed here, for surely no one would be so unreasonable as to contend that the inhibitions which God imposes upon men are to be made operative upon himself.

In the treatment of the objection preceding the one now under consideration I pointed out the fact of the antiquity of the gospel, showing that even unto Abraham the gospel had been preached, and that the law of Moses, usually called the law of carnal commandments, had been "added" to the gospel because of the transgressions of Israel, from which fact it is evident that the gospel was administered in those ancient, patriarchial times. It was a higher law than the law of Moses. It was the everlasting covenant of God with man and the blood of Christ is spoken of as being the blood of that everlasting covenant.^[[6]] There was a priesthood that administered the ordinances of that gospel, and as the gospel was a higher law than the law of Moses, it is reasonable to conclude that the priesthood which administered in those ordinances was a higher order of priesthood than that conferred upon Aaron and the tribe of Levi, and undoubtedly the higher priesthood could, on occasion, administer in the ordinances of the inferior law. It was, doubtless, this higher order of Priesthood that such characters as Abraham, Melchizedek, and other prophets in Israel held, and by which they administered in sacred things. It was this order of priesthood that was held by Lehi and Nephi, and which the latter conferred upon his brothers, Jacob, and Joseph.^[[7]] The former referring to his priesthood says, that he had been "ordained after the manner of this (the Lord's) holy order," that being the way in which this higher priesthood, of which I am speaking, is designated throughout the Book of Mormon.^[[8]] Called also a priesthood "after the order of the Son of God." It was this priesthood, therefore, that was conferred upon the Nephites—not the Aaronic priesthood—and by which they officiated in sacred things; of things pertaining to the gospel as well as to the law given of Moses. The justification for administering in the things of the law by this priesthood consist in the fact that the superior authority includes all the rights and powers of the inferior authority, and certainly possesses the power to do what the inferior authority could do.

It may be claimed that the inconsistency of the Book of Mormon, relative to this matter, consists in this: It claims that the Nephites were living according to the law of Moses, and the law of Moses provided that the house of Aaron and the tribe of Levi alone should exercise the priesthood; whereas, among the Nephites others than the Levites held and exercised the priesthood; technically, that inconsistency exists, but it is a technicality and is capable of bearing no such weight of argument as Mr. Campbell puts upon it. In Lehi's colony there was no representative of the tribe of Levi so far as known, and hence others had to be chosen to officiate before the Lord in the priest's office.

That the Lord in making his covenant with the house of Aaron and the tribe of Levi concerning the priesthood reserved to himself the right on occasion to appoint others to perform priestly functions, even in Israel, in Palestine, is evident from the case of Gideon, the fifth judge in Israel after Moses. Gideon was of the tribe of Manasseh,^[[9]] and when the Lord would deliver Israel from the oppression of the Midianites he sent his angel to this man, and though he was not of the tribe to whom the priesthood had been given by covenant, nevertheless, the Lord commanded him to build an altar, and he did so, and called it Jehovah-shalom. He also threw down the altar of Baal and built an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings, all of which were priestly functions.^[[10]] Shall these acts be denounced as a violation of the covenant of the Lord with Aaron and the tribe of Levi? Shall the angel of the Lord, who commanded Gideon in these priestly things, be declared a spirit of evil, a violator of God's covenant? Shall the book of Judges be rejected as a spurious book, and unworthy of being accepted as part of the scriptures because it relates these circumstances? In a word, shall we employ against it all the thunder of Mr. Campbell's criticism of the Book of Mormon? His criticism would be just as effective against the book of Judges as it is against the Book of Mormon, but as a matter of fact it would amount to nothing in either case, since the action of Gideon, and also of Lehi and Nephi, were of the Lord's appointing, and the Lord had certainly reserved to himself the right to appoint men other than members of the tribe of Levi when occasion should require, though he had forbidden "men" to appoint priests other than from that tribe. This was to avoid confusion and the bringing into existence rival priesthoods among God's people, but certainly when the Lord conferred a higher order of priesthood upon the Nephites, under which they were to operate in the New World, there was no infringement of the rights of the tribe of Levi. It was no more a violation of the covenant the Lord made with the tribe of Levi, than it would be for the Lord to appoint an inhabitant of Mars to that order of priesthood and give him the right of administration in that distant world.

The whole objection is captious, and manifests the weakness of the objections urged against the Book of Mormon, since so great stress must needs be laid upon this supposed contradiction of the Bible covenant.

In his objections to the Book of Mormon, in addition to those already noted, Mr. Campbell also lays stress upon the departure of Lehi from Jerusalem, and also the establishment of a temple and its service in the New World, as a great violation of God's covenant with Israel. "To represent God," he says, "as inspiring a devout Jew [Lehi was not a Jew, by the way, but of the tribe of Manasseh] and a prophet, such as Lehi and Nephi are represented by Smith, with resolution to forsake Jerusalem and God's own house, and to depart from the land which God gave to their fathers so long as they were obedient; and to guide by miracle and bless by prodigies a good man in forsaking God's covenant and worship, is so monstrous an error that language fails to afford a name for it."

One can scarce refrain from characterizing this sort of criticism as nonsense. Nor does it represent the facts in the case. Lehi was not forsaking God's covenant nor worship; he was leaving Jerusalem by the Lord's own commandment at a time when God's judgment was about to fall and shortly afterwards did fall upon the place, so that it was no great calamity that was happening to Lehi's righteous colony to be taken from such a place and brought to the great American continents, agreeable to the covenants of the Lord with the house of Joseph, Lehi's ancestor.^[[11]] The establishment of a temple in the New World was a necessity to this colony, but Mr. Campbell, together with all who have followed him in this and similar objections, seem determined to so limit the power of God that they will not allow of him making provisions to meet such occasions.

VI.

Nephite Knowledge of the "Call of the Gentiles."

Much stress is laid by Mr Campbell and others upon what Paul says respecting the "call" of the Gentiles to the grace of the gospel of Christ, "which in other ages," says Paul, "was not made know unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel."^[[12]]

The making this truth known to the world, according to Mr. Campbell's views of Paul's declaration was reserved to Paul and his fellow apostles of that dispensation. "But Smith," remarks Mr. Campbell, "makes his pious hero Nephi 600 years before the Messiah began to preach, disclose these secrets concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and blessings flowing through the Messiah to Jews and Gentiles, which Paul says was hid from ages and generations."^[[13]]

This objection could be disposed of in several ways. First, it could be held that when Paul, and the other apostles of the old world, spoke concerning the development of the work of the Lord in that land, they were limited by their knowledge of the world. They did not speak with reference to the people inhabiting the American continents who were unknown to them. For example, when Paul said:

Be not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.^[[14]]

No one for a moment thinks Paul had in mind the inhabitants of the western hemisphere when he said, "the Gospel was preached to every creature which is under heaven." He had reference to the world with which he was acquainted, as he knew the world.

Second, it could be held that the knowledge of this mystery revealed to the Nephites by no means interfered with the purposes of God in keeping that matter hidden from the Gentiles and the world. The fact made known to the Nephites never reached the Gentiles until after the publication of the Book of Mormon, in 1830, long ages after Paul had published the fact to the Gentile world. What was revealed to the Nephites in no way detracted from the glory of Paul and the other apostles, making known the mystery of God's grace to the Gentiles.

Third. It could be held that Paul meant that himself and fellow apostles knew in a different way that the Gentiles were to be fellow heirs with the house of Israel in the privileges of the gospel. Indeed, I think this must be the solution of the matter, for Mr. Campbell's version of it would bring Paul and Isaiah into pronounced conflict with each other, and prove that one or the other of them did not speak by the inspiration of God. That it was revealed to the ancients that the Gentiles were to partake of the advantages of Christ's atonement, and have part in the salvation that is possible though it is evident from the following passages, which all allow makes direct reference to Christ and his mission.

I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.^[[15]]

Again:

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.^[[16]]

In the light of these revelations, concerning the part the Gentiles were to have in the salvation that comes through Christ, it can scarcely be said that this "mystery," was not revealed in ages previous to the days of Paul; but it could be said, and this I contend is what Paul meant, that it was not as fully known in former ages that the Gentiles were "to be fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." Before Paul's time it was only in prophecy that this was known; but after his day it was known both in prophecy and as accomplished fact.